It was mentioned earlier that the Physics and Math forum could use a FAQ, and I was wondering if there is actually any support for this idea out there.

So, do you think that the Physics and Math forum would benefit from an FAQ on basic Physics and Mathematics, or would only create more problems?

If you answered yes to the above poll, please suggest a topic or two that you think should be included in the FAQ, such as simple integration, or an explanation of force diagrams, etc.

If you answered no to the poll, please explain why you think the FAQ would not be a fruitful venture.

Yes, there should be a FAQ. A FAQ will forward homework questions to it so that students can get a potentially different perspective from it than from their books on the same subject. Such a FAQ will reduce queries to those not already answered in the FAQ. Mathematically, the FAQ can go from numbers to number theory; from counting to mathematical statistics; from analytic geometry to calculus; from games to game theory; from set theory to abstract algebra; from regular logic to fuzzy logic; from real numbers to complex numbers; from differentials to Ordinary Differential Equations; from the Normal distribution to alternative distributions; relations between probability functions; from linear regression to multivariate analysis; from linear programming to integer programming; from known curves to approximated curves. Yes, a FAQ could help students in various levels of study. Those students may be in grammar school, High School, Community College, or even an Ivy League University. The simple fact that people can pass the SAT at age 9 shows that a FAQ can be useful for people as young as 9. Actually, a FAQ is useful for any literate individual who comprehends what is written.

If one wants, the Physics FAQ can be examples in the Math FAQ. For the benefit of actuaries and actuary wannabes, FAQs on Actuarial mathematics would be helpful since the failure rate on actuarial society exams rises with level of difficulty.

JMG.

I think it would be a good idea. I'd be happy to maintain an index of links to good threads in a separate, sticky FAQ thread.

What we really need, in that case, is for people to write some good general articles, rather than responses to particular questions. If anybody wants to do that, post your article in a new thread and I'll consider linking it to a sticky index thread.

Originally posted by James R
I think it would be a good idea. I'd be happy to maintain an index of links to good threads in a separate, sticky FAQ thread.

What we really need, in that case, is for people to write some good general articles, rather than responses to particular questions. If anybody wants to do that, post your article in a new thread and I'll consider linking it to a sticky index thread.

This is true. Articles would have to be generalizations. That is how I trained a roommate to think so that, instead of asking me math questions, he learned to think on his own. Instead of memorizing elementary formulas, he learned to derive them. Learning to think is how I taught one troubled future teacher to solve math queries so that she did not have to revisit the tutoring center on a daily basis.

Hmm. I would not want the FAQ to be corruptable by off-topic posts which detract from the learning aspect of the FAQ. In that sense, I will appreciate censoring or reassigning off topic elements of a FAQ. That power prevents confusion and enhances learning by focusing ideas.

Historical notions relative to particular sections would be relevant at the start of the particular sections or in an appendix of Math/Physics history.

If well written, a fleshed out FAQ might become the textbook of homeschooled students on a tight budget.

JMG.

<i>I would not want the FAQ to be corruptable by off-topic posts which detract from the learning aspect of the FAQ. In that sense, I will appreciate censoring or reassigning off topic elements of a FAQ. That power prevents confusion and enhances learning by focusing ideas.</i>

I agree. I'd think about keeping relevant posts (or copies of them) in separate, closed threads. Discussion could take place in separate threads in order to avoid readers of the FAQ having to wade through heaps of potentially less-useful material.

BTW, I'd be open to suggestions from any forum member regarding particular posts or topics which they thought should go into the FAQ.

Originally posted by GodLied
Hmm. I would not want the FAQ to be corruptable by off-topic posts which detract from the learning aspect of the FAQ. In that sense, I will appreciate censoring or reassigning off topic elements of a FAQ. That power prevents confusion and enhances learning by focusing ideas.


I concur, people freely posting in an FAQ would greatly detract from its benefit, and should be disallowed.

Originally posted by GodLied

Historical notions relative to particular sections would be relevant at the start of the particular sections or in an appendix of Math/Physics history.


I also suggest that references to appropriate textbooks be included, to indicate avenues for further study, and so the reader may verify for themselves that the FAQ contributors are not "making it up". It might also help to include an "assumed knowledge" section before each article, so readers know what tools they need to understand each article.

At this time, I suggest that those interested aid in constructing a basic outline for the FAQ, by posting topics that they believe should be included. (The outline in progress will be added to my initial post for easy viewing.)

Remember, try to aim for general topics instead of specific examples, e.g. instead of "finding the minimum value for f(x) = x^2+3x+17" (specific example) think "how to find critical points of a one-variable function and determine maxima and minima" (underlying concept).

After that is completed, a survey of the posters can be conducted, as to ascertain who is willing and able to contribute articles, and we can proceed from there.

Actually, I would not put the FAQ in seperate stickies, as this will get very messy in the end. I would make it one big sticky, closed from the beginning, where the moderator can add entries (replies in thread-terminology). One entry = one message in that thread.

Makes it a lot more convenient to find and to maintain.

Bye!

Crisp

Hmm... I'll think about it. I was considering separate threads for different categories and a master, sticky index thread with links to the others.

Originally posted by James R
Hmm... I'll think about it. I was considering separate threads for different categories and a master, sticky index thread with links to the others.

James, it makes sense to have an index. That index would make sense to have links to relevant threads. Using an index, redundancies can be omitted in examples of math and physics problems as physics problems are sometimes examples of applied math. Because math is applied in other fields, we could potentially have an index of fields with links to the math sections relevant to those fields. Such an occupation index assists people in searching the math FAQ.

One possibility is that there could be a link to a concept. Posts to that concept would be examples of the concept. Those examples enhance instillment of the concept in the minds of learners.

Numbering and assignment of what is necessary for what depends on what one wants to do. For example, inverse trig functions can be solved with tables of trig function values or with calculus. Also, some statistics requires elementary statistics and calculus.

JMG.